Author Topic: Median marriage age in the 1950s (Read 4201 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** March 30, 2012, 08:26:56 PM »

From the dalrock blog:

"Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old young woman in the 1950s. As you can see, half of her peers are married by the time they are a few months past their 20th birthdays. Since marriage isn’t something which typically occurs overnight, these women have likely been in the courtship and engagement process for several years. A woman who marries at age 20 was very likely strongly considering marriage at age 18 if not younger. Many of the women around her have in fact married at younger ages than 20. Young women in this kind of situation will approach the dating market very differently than young women do today. They may not plan on marrying their first boyfriend, but they are generally looking for a boyfriend who they feel is husband material. This focus on dads over cads is reinforced by the fact that other women are looking for the same dad traits. This creates what is called in game parlance preselection, and can be very powerful."

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2012, 08:54:02 PM »

Quote

Women are marrying roughly an additional year later than they did a decade ago, and 7.5 years later than they did in the 1950s. An 18 year old woman’s peers aren’t looking for a husband, and neither are the women 2 and 4 years older than her.

So what are they looking for?

Don't tell me they're not interested in men. So Catholic men are expected to wait while these girls fool around and take them when they're done, and pretending like fools that they're not doing anything like that.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:00:49 AM »

It IS traditional for women to marry young.

Is ISN'T traditional for women to prepare for careers and to "hold out" for some man who's out of their league until they're desperate.

The difference between 1950s customs on this and today's customs has not been caused by a "lack of maturity" - but rather with the advance of feminist values.

For those who see their traditional church as an upper middle class nostalgia club: your attitudes aren't traditional. You aren't traditionalists.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:46:30 AM »

And though I wasn't thinking of that girl in particular when I posted this, I realize that it does apply directly to her, since she's very close to the age, perhaps within a month of the average for the decade, when in the 1950s, when society still had traditional religion, ONE HALF of girls her age were already married. And yet a so-called "traditional priest" - who is nothing of the kind, called a 17 year old girl a "baby"!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2012, 05:02:53 AM »

Let me correct that:

Of those getting married at the time, one half were younger than her.

But today it's considered a "freak" for women to marry that age - often by so-called Trads!